There may be a particular instance when in-camera would be of use but generally one would want to spend the time taking pictures as opportunities present themselves, not fidling around with processing.

I'd much rather see manufacturers use bigger sensors to improved dynamic range and noise. Cameras have limited processing power, limited memory and small screens. As a result, a camera will not be able to do as good a job in processing the image as a full computer. In-camera image manipulation may sell more cameras to casual users, but for the rest of us, improving image quality is more important.

When I'm shooting, I want to concentrate on making the best image possible. I don't want to divert my attention to image processing, much less on a screen so small you really can't see what you are doing.

I have yet to see an on camera display that allows me to make other than very gross decisions regarding image qualities. I can't see in-camera adjustments being of much use when you can't visually make decisions about what is happening. Of course, the trend will continue, as camera companies seem to seek the lowest common denominator, rather than the highest possible quality.

I'm more concerned about the scene composition, lighting and capture capabilities of my cameras. Image processing is a post-capture activity best accomplished with software designed to manipulate the images.

Unless the camera also has a pointer or mouse for me to be precise which point to retouch! The images on the LCD or monitor just give me confidence that I got the pictures I wanted to and then move for other shots. They're unnecessary features.